Slashdot Mirror
Round 3 Of TAP Forum By ESR, Lessig, Et Al.
Iambic Pentametor writes "Back in April, Slashdot had a story
covering the first two rounds of a forum at The American Prospect between Eric S. Raymond, Lawrence Lessig,
Nathan Newman, Jeff A. Taylor, and Jonathan Band.
The third round is here.
ESR's latest is pretty inspiring and despite some squabbling, each of the combatants make some good points."
Or is http://www.prospect.org/controversy/open_source/ a bad URL?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"We'll stampede to a new leader. But it could be months or years before the talking heads notice. It took them years to notice that we existed in the first place."
I submit that this is a problem with media that has no true intrest or ties to the community it is reporting on/about. Even other groups have this problem, and I'm sure we won't be the first to deal with it.
"Bad Mojo is right."
Can I quote you on that? You know, for when I run for mouthpeice of the movement? Hehehe.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
No, because chances are very good that what ESR says is what most hackers think. People like ESR and RMS don't get their ability to be heard from their own power, we attribute it to them.
If you are going to be annoyed, go be annoyed at elected officials telling you what you think. Or get mad at the media for telling you what laws you break and what a horrible person you are as a hacker. Go be annoyed with society or something. But don't try to construct ESR as `the man'. Last I checked, ESR was viewed as typical hacker with ideas that lined up pretty well with a good many open source and free software people out there.
When that changes, I'm sure the majority will finger some other willing soul to be a mouthpiece for the movement. Maybe even you.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
I think perhaps ESR and the others are not as far apart as they might imagine. In the third round, ESR states that "we [hackers] are very, very good at co-opting the system". What he doesn't seem to realize is that there are two entities in his statement, the co-opter and the system being co-opted.
From my reading, I believe that what Lessig in particular is saying is that the system exists in the form of policy, and that system has already been co-opted by the Microsofts, MPAAs and other large corporate interests to pass things like UCITA and DMCA. Lessig seems to be suggesting that if we don't co-opt the policy process the way we've done in other areas, somebody else will, much to the open source movement's detriment.
ESR seems to be arguing that we don't need no stinking system, because hackers are the real creators of the digital revolution. What he is ignoring is the fact that without a system, there is nothing to co-opt. For instance, if there had been no ARPA in 1969 with money to spend on a massive networking experiment and politicians nervous about mobile military communication, then it wouldn't have mattered how many hackers like JCR Liklider and Robert Taylor there were.
PS. I also grow weary of ESR as my "tribe's" representative. We are too diverse a group of people for any one (or two) people to really represent our views. Otherwise slashdot wouldn't be as interesteing as it is.
Contract law can be something very good. Properly applied it could simplify some of the legal maze we've built - imagine if the labels on products were contracts - if the package of grits says it great for pouring down your pants, but when you try that ... - then the manufacture has broken the contract.
Unfortunately, these days contract disputes tend to be won by the side with the most lawyers, and consumers are consumers, not partners in a contract.
One of the more disturbing subtexts of ESR's use of the word 'tribe' is that, in an actual tribe (think "primitive peoples"), there can be no dissent in the modern sense. All members are of the same blood, have identical culture, and have similar life experiences so there is actually not much in the way of deeply opposed points-of-view. And the Tribal Elders run the show, and tolerate no serious opposition.
Given these attributes, it makes perfect sense for ESR to refer to all hackers as his Tribe: In his view, those with any fundamental disagreements are, by definition, not of His Tribe. And therefore not really hackers. Witness phrases such as "...my report of what the open-source culture knows and believes and wants." If you disagree, you Don't Really Matter.
As a self-described anthropologist/linguist ESR cannot be totally ignorant of the implications of this usage of the word.... and one does sometimes get the impression from his essays that this sort of tribal setup would, indeed, be his ideal social structure for Open Source.
Depressingly enough, we may already be there.
:Michael
I agree with him that in retrospect, very little of his poetry is worth saving.
That "Funny Fan Mail" reminds me of those cheesy testimonial ads on TV...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Oh, well that's conclusive. I don't think.
For a start, there's CML2, which looks likely to be what gets run when you type "make config" in future. This is entirely an ESR work.
> The kernel thing is news to me. I grepped through the kernel source and didn't find anything.
Oh, well that's conclusive. I don't think.
Never said it was conclusive.
For a start, there's CML2, which looks likely to be what gets run when you type "make config" in future. This is entirely an ESR work.
Well, that might be a significant contribution to development tools, I suppose, but it doesn't support the literal truth of what you said, which is perhaps an overstatement.
In any case, this is an irrelevant quibble.
I don't mean to criticize ESR's contributions to open source projects, to which he can justly point with pride; I don't think it gives him the right to be anyone's spokesman but his own.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Shoot, I'm calling up Network Solutions, MCI, and BBN Planet right now and demand the equity that's mine. All this time, thinking property law defined who controls the infrastructure.. what a chump I was! I guess all is well after all.
The government - ANY government, no matter where you may live - has a long track record of badly thought out policies on issues ranging from diplomatic relations to public health to intellectual property. Just about the only thing distinguishes an effective government from an ineffective one is how readily they learn from and fix their inevitable mistakes. Unfortunately the only indication that a government has that it has just made a mistake is the volume of protest, counterarguments and lost votes that result from the mistake.
This is where a government is no better off than the average slashdotter because they have an even worse signal:noise ratio to cope with than we do - Anyone with a "strong" viewpoint will generate so many flames when a regulation they object to is introduced that a politician often cant "hear" the more rational voices, the ones proposing intelligent solutions or compromises. There aint no moderation in politics so the offtopic gets dragged in as relevant (how many riders to otherwise useful bills have fouled things up in the last 12 months of american politics, for example.)
For so long as any government is trying to set policies on an issue those that are able to speak to that issue from a genuine position of experience and knowledge will be needed. I may not agree with ESR on every point but I sure as hell respect the fact that he is doing something useful by his open-source advocacy and more to the point it is something that I cannot do myself. Sure as individuals my opinion and his carry no greater theoretical weight on a national scale but the fact remains that he has earned his reputation as a knowledgable person in this field and therefore he is better placed in this role than I would be.
He cannot do it alone though, nobody could. How many of you have written to representatives regarding issues like the DMCA - I'm not talking about flaming "this legislation is a piece of crap!" letters, you all know as well as I do that those wont even get read. I'm talking about a rational statement of your disagreements with a bottom line of "If you support this measure I will not vote for you, irrespective of my party alleigance"
If they cant hear you, they cant represent you whether they want to or not - and even if they dont want to the prospect of losing an election is enough to force any career politician to take your views into account
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
I had a
And his poetry is shit
And his "Funny Fan Mail" isn't funny.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Actually, this may be why ESR has his "Geeks with Guns" bent. "When they come for my router, they'll have to fight for it."
That's part of it. A bigger part is this:
Why does a subset of hackers get this bizarre notion that it's bad if the government tells me what I can do with information, what I can do with encryption, what I can log into when, what I can see in a movie theatre, or what I can send to whom over the net, but it's OK for them to tell me how I can go about exercising my right to keep and bear arms?
Information is far more dangerous than guns, yet some of us will tolerate the restriction of the latter but not of the former.
That is asinine. All of your rights are precious, and just as you wouldn't tolerate me trying to restrict a right that you value, I won't tolerate you trying to restrict a right that I value.
I believe that's more where ESR is coming from.
Eric, correct me if I'm wrong, please.
BTW, why would anybody who doesn't trust the government not to lie, cheat, and steal also trust them not to murder and kidnap? Guns are your protection against the latter, just as information is your protection against the former.
I contend that it's worse if the government kidnaps or murders you than if they lie, cheat, and steal from you, yet some hackers proclaim that they'll never give up the right to protect themselves from government lies, cheating, and theft, but readily give up the right to protect themselves from potential government kidnapping and murder.
Give up that right if you must; but don't try to give it up for *ME* too. Or for Eric.
--
A reasonable legislative agenda for the open-source movement might be as follows:
All of those things are within the realm of political reality.
These statements are, at least to some extent, contradictory. It's clear from anyone who's listened to them that ESR and RMS have some very, very different opinions on various matters, particularly WRT the government's anti-trust suit against Microsoft (which ESR made a big issue of in his talk). This, in itself, is evidence that ESR does not necessarily represent what most hackers think.
IMO if you read the general opinion on Slashdot (which is at least an attempt to listen to the whole community, rather than one self-appointed spokesman), it becomes obvious that on at least some issues ESR represents a small minority opinion. The Microsoft breakup is one good example of this. The opinion on Slashdot seems primarily divided between people who have listened to Microsoft's POV (MS has done nothing wrong and should remain atop the heap) and people who think that the anti-trust suit was a great thing. Comparatively few people have expressed Raymond's view that the anit-trust suit is essentially meaningless (because MS is going down to the power of "Open Source" programming) and a bad thing in the abstract (because the government should butt out).
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I submit that this is a problem with media that has no true intrest or ties to the community it is reporting on/about. Even other groups have this problem, and I'm sure we won't be the first to deal with it.
Yeah, I stopped believing that the mainstream press was correct, accurate, complete or up-to-date years ago. Every time they report events that I have first-hand knowledge of, they are dead wrong on at least a few important aspects of it. By Occam's Razor, I assume that the same is true when they report on things I wasn't already familiar with.
Part, and only part, of the problem arises from the model of the press as an entity that practices unbiased journalism. Those two words hold the key to the problem. There is nothing wrong with the hope that we can get a view of every side of a controversial issue. But it is common for press reports to reduce it to two competing sides. As for journalism, there are too many reporters out there who know how to write stories for newspapers and magazines and too little about what they are reporting on.
I prefer press with a background knowledge and a viewpoint. I don't have to agree with that viewpoint, so long as I know what it is.
Mojo, go ahead and quote me. It isn't like my comments ever got anyone else anything.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
"IMO if you read the general opinion on Slashdot (which is at least an attempt to listen to the whole community, rather than one self-appointed spokesman), it becomes obvious that on at least some issues ESR represents a small minority opinion."
I think that by your logic, using Slashdot to get a consensus of the general Hacker opinion is no different that getting it from ESR. IMHO of course.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
non hackers shouldn't have any say in the Open Source movement, and that THEY (hackers) and not avg. Joe should decide whether to put Microsoft on it's knees.
Hi. I'm a non-hacker. I think you should write a Linux app that will replace Hyperterminal...
...
...
...
Are you done yet?
...
...
...
So what's wrong with this picture? I'll tell you what's wrong. The Open Source movement is a whole bunch of individual people. They write what they want to write. No non-hacker can tell a hacker what to write, unless they've got the money to pay for the hacker's talents. I don't see ESR so much dictating policy as stating an obvious fact: those without power cannot exert power over those who have power unless they take some of that power for themselves. No non-hacker can create code unless they become a hacker.
Yeah boy, if only he would be more like RMS and stick to the topics at hand :) :) :) Heck, the last time I heard RMS speak, he at one point was describing marriage as a repressive male institution designed to subvert women... How exactly is that related to open source or the GPL?
Seriously, ESR and RMS are both extremely bright and thoughtfull philosophers with important things to say. I agree with one more then the other, but I think both are important to listen too, and I don't think you can listen to them in a vaccuum.
If you listen to a speech, you get listen to what the speaker feels is important to say. If you want to hear just what you want to hear, write your own speech or pick speakers that are more fully aligned with your world view.
There is enough bigotry and censorship already (against both the left AND the right wings)... lets not add to it and give our guest speakers a list of "approved topics"...
All, of course "IMHO"
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
I think it would be more precise to say that "we run the internet", not that we own it.
Have you never read Dune? "The power to destroy a thing is the power to control it absolutely" or something like that.
(AC 'cuz who knows how much today's moderators like ESR)
No, I think you're wrong. I think he works a lot like a duck - calm and relaxed on the surface, and paddling like crazy where you can't see!
It's about the role Open Source Software should be given in Public Policy. I.e. should the government be for it, against it, or ignore it? The worry is that the government will be against it due to the DMCA. Because if you distribute Open Source Software it hardly falls in with what the DMCA wants and if there is "Good Software" which doesn't _need_ that protection, and all the CRAP does, then the gov't looks dumb for making it law.
That is a worry. An even bigger worry is that they might try to help it!
Talk about _hard_. I mean really. He has a job/occupation much like the president's. He's a public speaker, writer, programmer, etc., He's like a college professor in that respect as well, except his listeners don't always have the background to understand what he's got to say. Should have prerequisites for reading anything by ESR. 1) You have to have used this _miracle linux_ 2) You have to have used some real OS 3) You have to know at least a little programming or know what it's like to work in that field. Many people take him at his words and not the ideas he addresses.
Talk about _hard_. I mean really. He has a job/occupation much like the president's. He's a public speaker, writer, programmer, etc.,
No, let's be realistic here. He gives speeches occasionally. He writes essays occasionally. He tinkers with programming projects here and there. Compare that to someone with a full-time programming job that spends 8-12 hours a day banging out code with the pressure of deadlines. Or someone trying to start his own business who doesn't have millions in stock.
I'm not putting down ESR at all, just pointing out that what he's doing is not tremendously difficult. I admire his writing, and I think more than occasional travel would be draining, but in general he can spend his time as he likes.
My only suggestion: please look again at copyright. What part of it could not be emulated with NDA contracts plus receiving-stolen-data laws? Because copyrights and patents both assert that I don't own my property where it has a certain form, or where I changed it with a certain process into that form. This even if I got it into that form without breaking any NDAs or accepting data derived from a broken NDA.
Certainly, computer-savvy people ("hackers") are required to keep the Internet going. To the extent that we hackers believe in an open Internet and implement that belief, the Internet will stay open. However, do we as a group really believe in an open Internet? And will we as a group remain steadfast in the face of government and corporate coercion? E.g., there appears to be some number of us who work for corporations (such as Microsoft) and governments (such as China) with different visions of the Internet. The benefits of working for Microsoft and the penalties for disobeying oppressive governments can be very persuasive.
Certainly, those of us who believe in an open Internet need to lobby politicians and persuade our managers that this is the right thing to do. The government can sometimes be very helpful. For example, I think that the USA's action against Microsoft has given a big boost to open source.
But our primary goal must be to expand our culture to all hackers. After all, we "own" the Internet.
I don't claim to be as Libertarian as ESR, but I have to agree with him here.
The question isn't one of what's best, but what is moral. I don't
think the it's the role of government to encourage free software. I
would be acting against my values and principles if I advocated
government action.
I believe Lessig has a stronger case ONLY if you believe in the
philosophy of all-encompassing, ameliorative government. I don't, and
believe that moving that direction is bad for the whole country in the
long term. Not because I think I'm the only person smart enough to
figure out software policy.
Damn, when i read that headline i thought it was a wrestling match. Now that would be entertaining. Imagine it: A cage match with ESR, RMS and Linus...mmm, Geek Celebrity Deathmatch :)
Syllable : It's an Operating System
ES Raymond seems to say that non hackers shouldn't have any say in the Open Source movement, and that THEY (hackers) and not avg. Joe should decide whether to put Microsoft on it's knees.
Lessig comes right out and states flat out that he never coded a thing in his life, yet seems to have a firmer grasp on the situation than others... It's quite unfortunate in todays world that the law is so convoluted that it requires readers assistance... But thank god some of the best are on the Open Source side.
If you combine the argument of Lessig, and Brand, the strongest argument exists. Tighter Government control for the handing out of patents, the use of those patents (and copyrights) (Lessig) and Government sponsorship of Innovation, as opposed to stagnation. (Brand)
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
"despite the best efforts of the open-source movement to "crush" others"
Does the air around you crush you? Does the sun in the sky crush you? OpenSource simply is. ESR is saying that whatever obstacles are put in place, the desire for free expression embodied as OpenSource will prevail. Goverments and big business could put all their efforts into stemming the flow of free thought or the spread of the internet, but if by nothing more that sheer volume OpenSource will prevail. It is a reality and any amount of legislation, litigation or brute force won't stop it. No more than such actions have stopped free thought and expression. Get a clue.
What is more irritating is the wasted human effort spent trying to stop it. And when the government is doing the wasting it really bugs me because they think they are doing it in my best interests.
While you may never corral those last few hackers, the ones who write FreeNet and change it in the face of all attacks and figure out how to disguise it yet again so it evades the law this week... so what? Freedom for the .01% is not freedom at all.
I agree with Lessig; it's dangerous to assume hackers uber alle. Barring a large scale move out into space, the policians still have a lot of power here. There's no natural law of the universe that the they can't destroy all the routers of the world, confiscate computers, and kill the ringleaders of any resistance movement. You think they need us? Those who would fight freedom this hard would have no problem moving the world back to feudalism, as long as they are in power.
Do not underestimate your enemies. They like it when you do that.
"et al." is an abbreviation for the Latin "et alienses", meaning "and others".